Will technology save us, and can technology and sustainability ever align?

Rita
Oct 24
6 min read

The question comes up often, sometimes with hope, sometimes with irony: will technology save us?

The honest answer is no. Technology alone will not save anyone. It is not a magic key that fixes the crises we face. It can just as easily push us closer to collapse as help us slow down and rethink our path. What matters is not the tools themselves, but how we choose to use them.

Contrast between renewable energy with solar panels and wind turbines, and heavy traffic pollution in a city

Technology and sustainability: a double-edged tool

Every invention, from the wheel to artificial intelligence, is a mirror of human priorities. We design, fund, and deploy technologies to serve goals we set. If our goal is more profit, more speed, and more consumption, then the technologies we create will reflect exactly that. If our goal is resilience, sustainability, and fairness, then they can point in another direction.

This is why the debate around technology should never be limited to the technical. The real debate is about values, models of society, and the kind of future we want to build.

A solar panel on its own is just hardware. A medical AI is just code. A new material is just chemistry. But in context, these things can mean very different futures.

The double edge of innovation

Let’s look at a few examples.

Artificial intelligence is often presented as the breakthrough of our time. Its potential is undeniable:

It can speed up and protein design, helping identify therapeutic compounds and optimize safety profiles more rapidly than conventional methods
It advances materials design and sustainable manufacturing, enabling discovery of catalysts and composites that improve carbon efficiency or lower process emissions
AI also supports energy transition and urban efficiency, optimizing renewable integration, electricity distribution, and energy demand prediction, critical to sustainable city systems.

Doctor collaborating with an AI robot in a medical setting

Used wisely, it could be a powerful ally in the transition to a sustainable society.

However, personalized algorithmic systems in online platforms can manipulate user behavior through nudging, targeted advertising, and data-driven psychological exploitation, compromising autonomy for corporate or political interests. Studies of virtual influencer marketing similarly find AI-enhanced endorsements significantly amplify advertising influence and brand persuasion.

The same paradox exists in other fields:

Carbon capture and storage is promoted as a way to clean up fossil fuel emissions. But large projects are expensive, uncertain, and often used by oil companies as an excuse to keep drilling instead of phasing out fossil fuels. The hope of capture becomes a reason not to reduce emissions now.
Self-driving cars are marketed as the future of sustainable mobility. But they risk making car dependency even worse, encouraging longer commutes and urban sprawl, while the real solutions - trains, buses, and walkable cities - are left underfunded.
Space tourism is technically brilliant, but socially empty. Billions are invested to send a few wealthy passengers into orbit, while urgent problems on Earth remain unsolved.

These examples show the same pattern: innovation is not automatically progress. It can be brilliant in design but useless - or even harmful - in context.

The myth of neutral technology

One of the most dangerous ideas is that technology is “neutral,” and that only its application matters. This is not entirely true. Technology is born inside specific economic, political, and cultural systems. A tool designed in the context of hyper-consumption will rarely escape that logic.

Take the example of planned obsolescence. Many consumer electronics are designed with short lifespans: batteries sealed in, software updates cut off, repairs made impossible. The technology is not neutral here. It is intentionally shaped to serve a business model of constant replacement.

The same goes for digital platforms. Their architecture is not neutral. It is built to maximize time spent online, collect personal data, and sell ads. That design choice is technical, but it comes from an economic system that values attention as currency.

So when we ask whether technology will save us, we must first ask: who designs it, for what purpose, and within which system?

Useful vs useless innovation

Not all innovation is equal. Some ideas truly help us face our greatest challenges. Others consume talent, money, and energy for outcomes that make things worse.

A useful innovation is one that addresses clear needs: reducing emissions, improving health, restoring ecosystems, or making societies more resilient. For example:

Low-cost solar panels and local energy storage in rural areas.
Water purification systems that work without electricity.
New biodegradable materials that reduce plastic waste.
Early-warning systems for floods and wildfires.

These are not glamorous headlines in the same way as flying taxis or space tourism. But they directly respond to urgent global problems.

On the other side, we see innovations that are technically brilliant but socially empty, or worse, socially harmful. High-speed luxury travel. Algorithms to sell more products people don’t need. Disposable electronics with no repair pathway. Weapons systems that automate destruction.

These are innovations, yes. But they don’t save us. They lock us deeper into patterns we already know are unsustainable.

When technology distracts from responsibility

Another risk is that belief in technology can become an excuse to avoid responsibility. Politicians, corporations, and even individuals may point to future innovations as a way to justify inaction now.

We hear it often: “Yes, emissions are rising, but technology will solve it.” Or: “Don’t worry about overconsumption; future recycling will be efficient enough.”

This narrative is seductive because it allows us to maintain comfort while postponing difficult changes. But it is dangerous. Betting everything on future technology is like refusing to brake because we believe someone will invent a better airbag.

Changing the paradigm

If we want technology to help us, we need to shift the paradigm it serves. Right now, too much innovation is driven by hyper-consumption, short-term profit, and competition. In that context, even brilliant inventions are often bent toward the wrong goals.

What would a different paradigm look like?

Human hands forming a circle symbolizing unity, collaboration, and sustainability

Sufficiency before efficiency. Instead of asking how to consume more efficiently, we ask how to consume less.
Repair and resilience. Design systems and materials that last, can be fixed, and adapt to shocks.
Common good over private gain. Direct innovation toward societal benefits first, not just market advantage.
Planetary boundaries as limits. Treat climate, biodiversity, and resources as non-negotiable boundaries.

Within such a paradigm, technology becomes a tool for balance, not acceleration.

The role of intelligence - human and artificial

It is easy to imagine that artificial intelligence will “think for us” and solve problems we can’t. But AI is trained on data from the past and optimized for the goals we give it. If those goals are aligned with unsustainable models, the results will reinforce the same.

Human intelligence - our collective capacity to set priorities, cooperate, and imagine - is still the foundation. Technology can amplify, but it cannot replace the need for choice.

This is why we must keep asking: why are we building this, who benefits, and what does it cost?

A call for responsible innovation

So, will technology save us? No. But it can help if we direct it wisely.

That means asking more of inventors, engineers, researchers, and entrepreneurs: not just “can we build this?” but “should we?” and “what will it serve?”

It means public funding that rewards solutions aligned with sustainability, not vanity projects. It means education that values ethics alongside science. It means media that highlights quiet, useful innovations, not just flashy prototypes.

And it means all of us, as citizens and consumers, being more critical of what is presented as progress.

Conclusion: the real question

The real question is not whether technology will save us. The real question is whether we will save ourselves by choosing the right use of technology.

If we pour our brightest minds and biggest investments into projects that only push consumption and speed, then technology is dangerous. It accelerates the crash.

But if we direct the same energy toward resilience, equity, and sustainability, then technology becomes part of the solution.

It is not a savior. It is a lever. The choice is ours: change direction, or hit the wall faster.

If you’re interested in these reflections and want to follow more thoughts on innovation, research, and sustainable technologies, we share them regularly.

Follow NETO Innovation on LinkedIn for updates, project stories, and insights.
Subscribe on our website to receive our latest news.
And don’t miss our blog, where we explore ideas shaping the future of innovation.